On 2/27/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
That's an extreme interpretation of that rule. We should shy aware from removing information simply because it is unsourced. We should only remove it if it is unsourced *and* we find it suspect.
In short, you do not agree with the verifiability policy, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V
You may see comments from me on the talk page there. I actually think people reworded it more strongly than they meant to. Verifiability was never, IMHO, intended to mean "delete everything that isn't sourced", or else 95% of the encyclopaedia would be wiped tonight. It should be a way of resolving disputes about accuracy, and improving the quality of our material.
If the verifiability policy currently says (I can't check it right now) that all unsourced material should be removed - end of story - then yes, I disagree with it.
That is very nearly exactly what it says:
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
(It doesn't say "should" yet.)
I added "3. If an editor adds something controversial, the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."
I can't stand "reputable" either, but that's another discussion.
What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
On 2/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
Agreed. This is policy wording driven through on the basis of controversial, edit-warred articles.
-Matt
On 2/28/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
Agreed. This is policy wording driven through on the basis of controversial, edit-warred articles.
Here's some further thoughts:
I have only mild disagreements with the "policy in a nutshell":
{{Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.}}
However "The Policy" is a different matter.
a) The Policy says nothing about controversiality. b) The Policy says nothing about making challenges. c) The Policy says nothing about asking for a verifiable source.
Instead, the policy as stands says that unsourced entries can be immediately and officially deleted. The policy should reflect the "policy in a nutshell" that *all* editors have a responsibility to cite a source whether or not they were the one adding material. Removing valid information just because it wasn't sourced smacks of distrust of fellow editors and paranoia. I think that both neutrality and full sourcing are critical ultimate goals--that is, the Platonic Wikipedia is one which is perfectly comprehensive, perfectly written, and perfectly sourced. But the Wikipedia in actuality is only an imperfect approximation, but as long as the statistical effect of all edits is in the right direction, we can be happy (if not satisfied). We don't expect that *every edit* improves the encyclopedia, but we expect that most will. And our policies should reflect that approach.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 2/28/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
Agreed. This is policy wording driven through on the basis of controversial, edit-warred articles.
Here's some further thoughts:
I have only mild disagreements with the "policy in a nutshell":
{{Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.}}
However "The Policy" is a different matter.
a) The Policy says nothing about controversiality. b) The Policy says nothing about making challenges. c) The Policy says nothing about asking for a verifiable source.
Instead, the policy as stands says that unsourced entries can be immediately and officially deleted. The policy should reflect the "policy in a nutshell" that *all* editors have a responsibility to cite a source whether or not they were the one adding material. Removing valid information just because it wasn't sourced smacks of distrust of fellow editors and paranoia. I think that both neutrality and full sourcing are critical ultimate goals--that is, the Platonic Wikipedia is one which is perfectly comprehensive, perfectly written, and perfectly sourced. But the Wikipedia in actuality is only an imperfect approximation, but as long as the statistical effect of all edits is in the right direction, we can be happy (if not satisfied). We don't expect that *every edit* improves the encyclopedia, but we expect that most will. And our policies should reflect that approach.
A precise definition of "reliable and reputable" is also missing.
Ec
On 2/27/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
Agreed. This is policy wording driven through on the basis of controversial, edit-warred articles.
Actually, it was The Cunctator who was trying to introduce a major change to [[WP:V]]. The page says: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."
He tried to change it to:
""If an editor adds something controversial, the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material . . ."
That would be a major policy change.
WP:V is supported by WP:NOR, a longstanding, established policy. The only way to show you're not doing OR is to produce a reliable source. If you can't produce one, your edit may be removed, because OR is never allowed.
If we ever get into a situation where lots of editors are using NOR and V as an excuse to run around removing unsourced edits, where the material has been published elsewhere and isn't controversial, but those wanting to retain it are mysteriously unable to cite a source, then we can revisit the issue. But currently, that isn't happening (and how could it?) so it looks as though you're trying to create a problem where none exists.
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote
WP:V is supported by WP:NOR, a longstanding, established policy. The only way to show you're not doing OR is to produce a reliable source. If you can't produce one, your edit may be removed, because OR is never allowed.
Yes, but this doesn't override some other things, like trying to get consensus.
If we ever get into a situation where lots of editors are using NOR and V as an excuse to run around removing unsourced edits, where the material has been published elsewhere and isn't controversial, but those wanting to retain it are mysteriously unable to cite a source, then we can revisit the issue. But currently, that isn't happening (and how could it?) so it looks as though you're trying to create a problem where none exists.
Well, I hope people really are behaving well, all over the site. I don't see how anyone can be that confident.
It is like it has been said: the slope of allowing the most fiercely contested articles set the policy is extremely slippery. Cutting before querying on Talk 'and do you have a source for that?' is still bad practice (still cuts across 'assume good faith', for example).
Charles
On 2/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Well, I hope people really are behaving well, all over the site. I don't see how anyone can be that confident.
It is like it has been said: the slope of allowing the most fiercely contested articles set the policy is extremely slippery. Cutting before querying on Talk 'and do you have a source for that?' is still bad practice (still cuts across 'assume good faith', for example).
It's really bad. Look at what has been done to our websites guidelines *since* the webcomics case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28websites...
Firstly, notice the false claim that a mere *guideline* is applied by *most* Wikipedia editors, and then look at what has been rejected:
Having been picked up by a major webcomics publisher. These include: - #*[[Keenspot]] - #*[[Modern Tales]] and its sister sites: [[Serializer]], [[Graphic Smash]], and [[Girlamatic]] - #*[[Blank Label Comics]] - #*[[Dayfree Press]] - #*[[Dumbrella]] - #Having won a significant award, such as: - #* [[Eisner Award]] - #* [[Ignatz Award]] - #* [[Webby Award]] - #* [[Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards]]
In short, *all* reference to actual, significant web publishing has been rejected as a webiste notability guidelines.
On 2/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote
WP:V is supported by WP:NOR, a longstanding, established policy. The only way to show you're not doing OR is to produce a reliable source. If you can't produce one, your edit may be removed, because OR is never allowed.
Yes, but this doesn't override some other things, like trying to get consensus.
The editors on a page are not allowed to reach a consensus to include original research, just as they're not allowed to decide to ditch NPOV. NOR and NPOV do override consensus.
It is like it has been said: the slope of allowing the most fiercely contested articles set the policy is extremely slippery. Cutting before querying on Talk 'and do you have a source for that?' is still bad practice (still cuts across 'assume good faith', for example).
But where is this happening? Please come up with examples if you feel it's a cause for concern.
Sarah
On 2/28/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote
WP:V is supported by WP:NOR, a longstanding, established policy. The only way to show you're not doing OR is to produce a reliable source. If you can't produce one, your edit may be removed, because OR is never allowed.
Yes, but this doesn't override some other things, like trying to get consensus.
The editors on a page are not allowed to reach a consensus to include original research, just as they're not allowed to decide to ditch NPOV. NOR and NPOV do override consensus.
You're a bit of a hardliner. Any form of analysis or recombination of ideas, any reformulation of content is original research to some degree. If there were no original research allowed at all, then the work on Wikipedia would not be copyrightable, because copyright requires some kind of creativity.
The only way to truly forbid original research is to make everything bot-created.
As someone who's been following the development of Wikipedia policy from the beginning, the forbidding of original research is not axiomatic to Wikipedia. The ultimate reason that original research is not allowed is that it's death to consensus editing, which is axiomatic to Wikipedia (note "Wiki").
And to this note, the current Verifiability policy does not say "If you can't provide a source, your edit may be removed". It says "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor."
There's no mention of asking for a source before removing content.
And this policy has only been in force for a month, and people are only now becoming aware of it (e.g. I just learned about it) -- so it's no surprised that it's not being abused yet.
Let's fix things before they become a problem.
I trust your goals, respect your perspective, and honor your opinions. I think we can work together on this.
Personally, I think it's just about right that the policy state that information without a source may be removed. (Perhaps it should be more pointed -- disputed information without a source). Didn't Jimbo say as much in one of his responses to Seigenthaler?
k
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote
WP:V is supported by WP:NOR, a longstanding, established policy. The only way to show you're not doing OR is to produce a reliable
source.
If you can't produce one, your edit may be removed, because OR is never allowed.
Yes, but this doesn't override some other things, like trying to get consensus.
The editors on a page are not allowed to reach a consensus to include original research, just as they're not allowed to decide to ditch NPOV. NOR and NPOV do override consensus.
You're a bit of a hardliner. Any form of analysis or recombination of ideas, any reformulation of content is original research to some degree. If there were no original research allowed at all, then the work on Wikipedia would not be copyrightable, because copyright requires some kind of creativity.
The only way to truly forbid original research is to make everything bot-created.
As someone who's been following the development of Wikipedia policy from the beginning, the forbidding of original research is not axiomatic to Wikipedia. The ultimate reason that original research is not allowed is that it's death to consensus editing, which is axiomatic to Wikipedia (note "Wiki").
And to this note, the current Verifiability policy does not say "If you can't provide a source, your edit may be removed". It says "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor."
There's no mention of asking for a source before removing content.
And this policy has only been in force for a month, and people are only now becoming aware of it (e.g. I just learned about it) -- so it's no surprised that it's not being abused yet.
Let's fix things before they become a problem.
I trust your goals, respect your perspective, and honor your opinions. I think we can work together on this. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Katefan0 wrote:
Personally, I think it's just about right that the policy state that information without a source may be removed. (Perhaps it should be more pointed -- disputed information without a source). Didn't Jimbo say as much in one of his responses to Seigenthaler?
k
How about "disputed unsourced information may be removed, but you should note this on the talk page, preferably with your reason for removing it".
-- Neil
Katefan0 wrote:
Personally, I think it's just about right that the policy state that information without a source may be removed. (Perhaps it should be more pointed -- disputed information without a source). Didn't Jimbo say as much in one of his responses to Seigenthaler?
Part of the problem is with the permissive word "may", which is too often read as though it were "shall".
Ec
What other word would you suggest, then? It's certainly more permissive than "shall."
k
On 3/1/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Katefan0 wrote:
Personally, I think it's just about right that the policy state that information without a source may be removed. (Perhaps it should be more pointed -- disputed information without a source). Didn't Jimbo say as
much
in one of his responses to Seigenthaler?
Part of the problem is with the permissive word "may", which is too often read as though it were "shall".
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/1/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Katefan0 wrote:
Personally, I think it's just about right that the policy state that information without a source may be removed.
Part of the problem is with the permissive word "may", which is too often read as though it were "shall".
We have to assume people can read English. Saying that an unsourced edit MAY be removed is clearly not the same as saying it MUST be or SHOULD be.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Katefan0 wrote:
Personally, I think it's just about right that the policy state that information without a source may be removed.
Part of the problem is with the permissive word "may", which is too often read as though it were "shall".
We have to assume people can read English. Saying that an unsourced edit MAY be removed is clearly not the same as saying it MUST be or SHOULD be.
Of course they're different, but most people don't read with that degree of precision even though they have been reading English for most of their lives. When in "The Amazing Race" they say, "The last contestant to arrive may be eliminated" it sets up an air of uncertainty. This situation is not much different. Obviously, we can't forsee every possibility that can arise, but the affected contributor needs the reassurance that the matter will be discussed with him, rather than left to the whim of some individual admin who may be on some kind of crusade. That assurance need not be there with "shall".
Ec
On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
We have to assume people can read English. Saying that an unsourced edit MAY be removed is clearly not the same as saying it MUST be or SHOULD be.
Of course they're different, but most people don't read with that degree of precision even though they have been reading English for most of their lives.
Rules and policies are meant to be written precisely, Ray. They have precise meanings.
The fact that stunningly large amounts of people have poor reading comprehension does not detract from this.
Philip Welch wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
We have to assume people can read English. Saying that an unsourced edit MAY be removed is clearly not the same as saying it MUST be or SHOULD be.
Of course they're different, but most people don't read with that degree of precision even though they have been reading English for most of their lives.
Rules and policies are meant to be written precisely, Ray. They have precise meanings.
The fact that stunningly large amounts of people have poor reading comprehension does not detract from this.
In this case I would have thought the meaning perfectly clear:
"Like any other material which you submit to Wikipedia, unsourced edits may be removed at the discretion of any editor."
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Philip Welch wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
We have to assume people can read English. Saying that an unsourced edit MAY be removed is clearly not the same as saying it MUST be or SHOULD be.
Of course they're different, but most people don't read with that degree of precision even though they have been reading English for most of their lives.
Rules and policies are meant to be written precisely, Ray. They have precise meanings.
The fact that stunningly large amounts of people have poor reading comprehension does not detract from this.
In this case I would have thought the meaning perfectly clear:
"Like any other material which you submit to Wikipedia, unsourced edits may be removed at the discretion of any editor."
Ahh! That's the same rule that applies to sourced edit. If that's the case why bother even having the rule at all?
Ec
On 3/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ahh! That's the same rule that applies to sourced edit. If that's the case why bother even having the rule at all?
Good point. There probably shouldn't be a "rule" about when to remove unsourced edits. Just some guidelines to be applied with common sense.
Steve
G'day Steve,
On 3/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ahh! That's the same rule that applies to sourced edit. If that's the case why bother even having the rule at all?
Good point. There probably shouldn't be a "rule" about when to remove unsourced edits. Just some guidelines to be applied with common sense.
It's prolly important to include something to the effect of if you *do* remove an unsourced edit because it's unsourced, then you're not going to get in trouble. That's something that policy's actually useful for, actually --- as is [[WP:IAR]] ...
-- Mark Gallagher "But the visibility was very poor, and you yourself admit that you were being struck by thunderbolts all the time, which must have distracted your attention, so it is more than probable you were mistaken." - Esmond Haddock, /The Mating Season/
On 3/2/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Steve, It's prolly important to include something to the effect of if you *do* remove an unsourced edit because it's unsourced, then you're not going to get in trouble. That's something that policy's actually useful for, actually --- as is [[WP:IAR]] ...
Well, you almost never "get in trouble" on Wikipedia. But to suggest that you no one would raise an eyebrow if you removed an uncontested, but unsourced sentence from the first paragraph of a major article is probably going a little far...
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/2/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Steve, It's prolly important to include something to the effect of if you *do* remove an unsourced edit because it's unsourced, then you're not going to get in trouble. That's something that policy's actually useful for, actually --- as is [[WP:IAR]] ...
Well, you almost never "get in trouble" on Wikipedia. But to suggest that you no one would raise an eyebrow if you removed an uncontested, but unsourced sentence from the first paragraph of a major article is probably going a little far...
How about pointing out that instead of removing unsourced material, people can tag it with {{citation needed}} and move on?
On 3/2/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/2/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Steve, It's prolly important to include something to the effect of if you *do* remove an unsourced edit because it's unsourced, then you're not going to get in trouble. That's something that policy's actually useful for, actually --- as is [[WP:IAR]] ...
Well, you almost never "get in trouble" on Wikipedia. But to suggest that you no one would raise an eyebrow if you removed an uncontested, but unsourced sentence from the first paragraph of a major article is probably going a little far...
How about pointing out that instead of removing unsourced material, people can tag it with {{citation needed}} and move on?
That's brilliant.
I think, as a guideline (rather than Official Policy), we should indicate what recommended options are for editors:
1. When making contributions, provide a reference. 2. If you see information that you believe needs a reference, your options include: a) Finding one (best) b) Failing that, either: 1) Tagging with {{citation needed}} 2) Moving unreferenced material to talk page with note asking for reference 3) Asking editor who contributed material to provide a reference 4) Removing the information
Depending on the circumstances, any of the options of b) may be best.
On 3/2/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
How about pointing out that instead of removing unsourced material, people can tag it with {{citation needed}} and move on?
That's brilliant.
I believe that's already in [[WP:RS]] and was in [[WP:V]] until the recent revamp by Jguk. I suggest we develop these points (what to do when you find unsourced material) in RS, and leave a reference to RS in V, so that V doesn't get bogged down in detail, which was the point of Jguk's new version.
It would be helpful if this discussion could take place on the talk page of WP:V.
Sarah
On 3/2/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I think, as a guideline (rather than Official Policy), we should indicate what recommended options are for editors:
- When making contributions, provide a reference.
- If you see information that you believe needs a reference, your
options include: a) Finding one (best) b) Failing that, either:
- Tagging with {{citation needed}}
- Moving unreferenced material to talk page with note asking for reference
- Asking editor who contributed material to provide a reference
- Removing the information
I would be tempted to express it as an ascending scale of doubt over accuracy, neutrality etc: 1 (least doubt): leave it 2 Ask for reference on talk page 3 Tag with {{citation needed}} 4 Remove to talk page 5 (certain that it's rubbish) Remove totally
Step 5 would be reserved effectively for vandalism
Steve
This is succinct, to the point, and absolutely correct. It doesn't need development (keep things simple!).
All you need now is to get rid of the nonsense in the first half of the policy page referring to what the policy isn't, and stick to saying clearly what the policy is. At present the first third of the page just tells you WP's not looking for truth!!?!?!?!?!!!
Jon
The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote: I think, as a guideline (rather than Official Policy), we should indicate what recommended options are for editors:
1. When making contributions, provide a reference. 2. If you see information that you believe needs a reference, your options include: a) Finding one (best) b) Failing that, either: 1) Tagging with {{citation needed}} 2) Moving unreferenced material to talk page with note asking for reference 3) Asking editor who contributed material to provide a reference 4) Removing the information
Depending on the circumstances, any of the options of b) may be best. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Cars NEW - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online search now ---------------------------------
On 3/2/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
This is succinct, to the point, and absolutely correct. It doesn't need development (keep things simple!).
All you need now is to get rid of the nonsense in the first half of the policy page referring to what the policy isn't, and stick to saying clearly what the policy is. At present the first third of the page just tells you WP's not looking for truth!!?!?!?!?!!!
But that's arguably the most important part of the policy, Jon. If people understand that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, then they've grasped the essence of V and NOR. Unfortunately, lots of people just don't get it, which is why the point is made right at the top of the page.
Sarah
No. The most important thing to explain is what it IS not what it ISN'T. Otherwise you don't know what to do, just what not to do.
This is true of explaining anything (and something WP's policies do very poorly).
Jon
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote: On 3/2/06, Jon wrote:
This is succinct, to the point, and absolutely correct. It doesn't need development (keep things simple!).
All you need now is to get rid of the nonsense in the first half of the policy page referring to what the policy isn't, and stick to saying clearly what the policy is. At present the first third of the page just tells you WP's not looking for truth!!?!?!?!?!!!
But that's arguably the most important part of the policy, Jon. If people understand that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, then they've grasped the essence of V and NOR. Unfortunately, lots of people just don't get it, which is why the point is made right at the top of the page.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now.
On 3/2/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/2/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
This is succinct, to the point, and absolutely correct. It doesn't need
development (keep things simple!).
All you need now is to get rid of the nonsense in the first half of
the policy page referring to what the policy isn't, and stick to saying clearly what the policy is. At present the first third of the page just tells you WP's not looking for truth!!?!?!?!?!!!
But that's arguably the most important part of the policy, Jon. If people understand that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, then they've grasped the essence of V and NOR. Unfortunately, lots of people just don't get it, which is why the point is made right at the top of the page.
And sometimes, when they do get it, they try to remove it from the policy? Why? Because they imagine that they (via Wikipedia) can actually disseminate the TRUTH, and if it so happens that the TRUTH is only found in their own head, or "everyone knows it", or (at best) it is found on some personal or blatantly propagandistic website, well, so be it.
There are plenty of websites out there that disseminate the TRUTH; e.g. The Truth about Hell (http://www.av1611.org/hell.html), The Truth about George W. Bush (http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/), The Truth about Iraq ( http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/), The opposite Truth about Iraq ( http://www.truthaboutwar.org/home.shtml), The Truth about Islam ( http://www.lamblion.com/New08.php), The opposite Truth about Islam ( http://www.twf.org/), oops, a different opposite Truth about Islam ( http://islamstrueface.blogspot.com/), The Truth about Black Helicopters ( http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/), etc. - that last one is intentionally funny, by the way, unlike the others, which are only unintentionally so.
One of the brilliant things about Wikipedia is that it is not so arrogant as to presume it can or should present "the TRUTH"; instead it presents verifiable information from reliable sources, which is far more useful, and almost always more truthful, than "the TRUTH".
Jay.
And what I am saying is that WP should concentrate on what it is doing, and what it's aims are. Accentuate the positive.
Jon
jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote: On 3/2/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/2/06, Jon wrote:
This is succinct, to the point, and absolutely correct. It doesn't need
development (keep things simple!).
All you need now is to get rid of the nonsense in the first half of
the policy page referring to what the policy isn't, and stick to saying clearly what the policy is. At present the first third of the page just tells you WP's not looking for truth!!?!?!?!?!!!
But that's arguably the most important part of the policy, Jon. If people understand that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, then they've grasped the essence of V and NOR. Unfortunately, lots of people just don't get it, which is why the point is made right at the top of the page.
And sometimes, when they do get it, they try to remove it from the policy? Why? Because they imagine that they (via Wikipedia) can actually disseminate the TRUTH, and if it so happens that the TRUTH is only found in their own head, or "everyone knows it", or (at best) it is found on some personal or blatantly propagandistic website, well, so be it.
There are plenty of websites out there that disseminate the TRUTH; e.g. The Truth about Hell (http://www.av1611.org/hell.html), The Truth about George W. Bush (http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/), The Truth about Iraq ( http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/), The opposite Truth about Iraq ( http://www.truthaboutwar.org/home.shtml), The Truth about Islam ( http://www.lamblion.com/New08.php), The opposite Truth about Islam ( http://www.twf.org/), oops, a different opposite Truth about Islam ( http://islamstrueface.blogspot.com/), The Truth about Black Helicopters ( http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/), etc. - that last one is intentionally funny, by the way, unlike the others, which are only unintentionally so.
One of the brilliant things about Wikipedia is that it is not so arrogant as to presume it can or should present "the TRUTH"; instead it presents verifiable information from reliable sources, which is far more useful, and almost always more truthful, than "the TRUTH".
Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now.
This reminds me of an excellent quotation from *Raiders of the Lost Ark*which, slightly modified, seems apropos: "(Encyclopedia writing) is the search for *facts,* not *truth.*" (And then Indiana Jimbo goes and finds the Lost Encyclopedic Reference of the Pharaohs before the Nazis can, I don't know, speedy delete [[Allies of World War II]].)
On 3/2/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/2/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com < slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
This is succinct, to the point, and absolutely correct. It doesn't
need
development (keep things simple!).
All you need now is to get rid of the nonsense in the first half of
the policy page referring to what the policy isn't, and stick to saying clearly what the policy is. At present the first third of the page just tells you WP's not looking for truth!!?!?!?!?!!!
But that's arguably the most important part of the policy, Jon. If people understand that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, then they've grasped the essence of V and NOR. Unfortunately, lots of people just don't get it, which is why the point is made right at the top of the page.
And sometimes, when they do get it, they try to remove it from the policy? Why? Because they imagine that they (via Wikipedia) can actually disseminate the TRUTH, and if it so happens that the TRUTH is only found in their own head, or "everyone knows it", or (at best) it is found on some personal or blatantly propagandistic website, well, so be it.
There are plenty of websites out there that disseminate the TRUTH; e.g. The Truth about Hell (http://www.av1611.org/hell.html), The Truth about George W. Bush (http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/ ), The Truth about Iraq ( http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/), The opposite Truth about Iraq ( http://www.truthaboutwar.org/home.shtml ), The Truth about Islam ( http://www.lamblion.com/New08.php), The opposite Truth about Islam ( http://www.twf.org/), oops, a different opposite Truth about Islam ( http://islamstrueface.blogspot.com/), The Truth about Black Helicopters ( http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/), etc. - that last one is intentionally funny, by the way, unlike the others, which are only unintentionally so.
One of the brilliant things about Wikipedia is that it is not so arrogant as to presume it can or should present "the TRUTH"; instead it presents verifiable information from reliable sources, which is far more useful, and almost always more truthful, than "the TRUTH".
Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/2/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
One of the brilliant things about Wikipedia is that it is not so arrogant as to presume it can or should present "the TRUTH"; instead it presents verifiable information from reliable sources, which is far more useful, and almost always more truthful, than "the TRUTH".
It may not seek to determine a single truth on controversial issues, but it generally aims to present "true" facts on noncontroversial topics, rather than simply references. *That* is the value - not, "here is a list of 30 websites about topic X, knock yourself out", but instead, "200 editors contributed what they believe to be true about topic X, and we also have 3 references to high quality websites that back that up".
Verifiability and sources are great, and are a good goal to be aiming for. But if we don't have them, let's at least have make sure Wikipedia contains "true" "facts" in the meantime.
Steve
On 3/2/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Verifiability and sources are great, and are a good goal to be aiming for. But if we don't have them, let's at least have make sure Wikipedia contains "true" "facts" in the meantime.
Well, I'm not advocating deleting everything in Wikipedia that doesn't have a citation from a reliable source beside it. However, the instant someone says "I don't think this statement is true or factual", then you do have to produce a verifiable citation from a reliable source to back it up.
Which is basically what the current policy says.
Jay.
On 3/2/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm not advocating deleting everything in Wikipedia that doesn't have a citation from a reliable source beside it. However, the instant someone says "I don't think this statement is true or factual", then you do have to produce a verifiable citation from a reliable source to back it up.
Which is exactly what I've been arguing for. Contested, unsourced citations should be dealt with.
Which is basically what the current policy says.
Unfortunately not.
"Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it."
"If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove large tracts of Wikipedia without first giving people a chance to provide references to support their inclusion."
It's hinted at...but my word there is a lot of crud in WP:V at the moment. There are actually two distinct summaries of the policy as well. Eep.
Steve
On 3/2/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Which is exactly what I've been arguing for. Contested, unsourced citations should be dealt with.
Which is basically what the current policy says.
Unfortunately not.
That's because you're looking at the wrong part of the page, Steve. Why quote from halfway down it when you could quote from the top? It says:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
There's no "crud," as you put it, and it's crystal clear.
Sarah
Ok, I'm not trying to argue here, but you say it's crystal clear, and it's not.
On 3/3/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
- Articles should contain only material that has been published by
reputable sources.
What does should mean? "Must"? "Should in an ideal world, but that's ok, we're in beta"? Are we talking about the Wikipedia ideal, or the minimum standard for inclusion in Wikipedia at the moment.
Also, we've had numerous examples of material which has never been published by reputable sources, but are agreed by consensus as being acceptable. Information about various websites, for example. Is this in violation of the policy?
- Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable
source, or it may be removed by any editor.
Should again. But also, as discussed, "may". As everyone knows, anyone "may" make any edit they like, so what is this really saying? Is it saying that no one should have any qualms whatsoever about removing any uncited material? Or is it simply a warning against adding new information?
Also, as it stands, this only covers "new material". What about unsourced existing material? "May" any editor remove that too?
- The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors
wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Editors have obligations now? This line is definitely against the Wikipedia spirit - instead of all working together to achieve something, this line makes it sounds like we're at cross purposes, so if we want to get our own way in the face of opposition, there are certain hoops to jump through.
There's no "crud," as you put it, and it's crystal clear.
The section on verifiability vs truth is very wordy. But here's a better example of crud:
-- Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so. --
What is this saying? "You can cite a dodgy source as long as a better source exists". How would you know if the better source exists? Why not just cite that? What if another editor doesn't believe that a better source exists? It seems to me that if a better source exists, you haven't achieved much by citing a dodgy source - so why bother with this exception?
There are other problems with the policy as it stands, however. Examples: - A reputable source publishes something in error (and later retracts it). What then? - A source is cited, but does not support the claim made. - A made-up source is cited - how to handle this situation?
In short, the policy very wordily attempts to define the notion of "verifiability" and gives examples of clear-cut situations of verifiable and unverifiable information, but doesn't give much help in applying this approach to everyday Wikipedia daily live, and doesn't help sort out borderline or unusual cases at all.
Steve
Steve
Seems pretty clear to me. The only people who I can see having questions about what these points mean are those actively looking to find them.
k
On 3/3/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I'm not trying to argue here, but you say it's crystal clear, and it's not.
On 3/3/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
- Articles should contain only material that has been published by
reputable sources.
What does should mean? "Must"? "Should in an ideal world, but that's ok, we're in beta"? Are we talking about the Wikipedia ideal, or the minimum standard for inclusion in Wikipedia at the moment.
Also, we've had numerous examples of material which has never been published by reputable sources, but are agreed by consensus as being acceptable. Information about various websites, for example. Is this in violation of the policy?
- Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable
source, or it may be removed by any editor.
Should again. But also, as discussed, "may". As everyone knows, anyone "may" make any edit they like, so what is this really saying? Is it saying that no one should have any qualms whatsoever about removing any uncited material? Or is it simply a warning against adding new information?
Also, as it stands, this only covers "new material". What about unsourced existing material? "May" any editor remove that too?
- The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors
wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Editors have obligations now? This line is definitely against the Wikipedia spirit - instead of all working together to achieve something, this line makes it sounds like we're at cross purposes, so if we want to get our own way in the face of opposition, there are certain hoops to jump through.
There's no "crud," as you put it, and it's crystal clear.
The section on verifiability vs truth is very wordy. But here's a better example of crud:
-- Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so. --
What is this saying? "You can cite a dodgy source as long as a better source exists". How would you know if the better source exists? Why not just cite that? What if another editor doesn't believe that a better source exists? It seems to me that if a better source exists, you haven't achieved much by citing a dodgy source - so why bother with this exception?
There are other problems with the policy as it stands, however. Examples:
- A reputable source publishes something in error (and later retracts
it). What then?
- A source is cited, but does not support the claim made.
- A made-up source is cited - how to handle this situation?
In short, the policy very wordily attempts to define the notion of "verifiability" and gives examples of clear-cut situations of verifiable and unverifiable information, but doesn't give much help in applying this approach to everyday Wikipedia daily live, and doesn't help sort out borderline or unusual cases at all.
Steve
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ok, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if it's clear, then presumably my questions have straightforward answers answered by the policy.
But yeah, probably better for me to work directly on the policy rather than just whinging about it here :)
Steve
On 3/3/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Seems pretty clear to me. The only people who I can see having questions about what these points mean are those actively looking to find them.
k
On 3/2/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/2/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
This is succinct, to the point, and absolutely correct. It doesn't need development (keep things simple!).
All you need now is to get rid of the nonsense in the first half of the policy page referring to what the policy isn't, and stick to saying clearly what the policy is. At present the first third of the page just tells you WP's not looking for truth!!?!?!?!?!!!
But that's arguably the most important part of the policy, Jon. If people understand that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, then they've grasped the essence of V and NOR. Unfortunately, lots of people just don't get it, which is why the point is made right at the top of the page.
I think one point of confusion is that we're putting * implications of the policy * guidelines based on the policy * interpretations of the policy
on the same page as the policy.
The only thing that should be on the policy page is the policy.
In fact, this is certain ways the type of confusion that motivated Larry Sanger to create Meta.
On 3/1/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Part of the problem is with the permissive word "may", which is too often read as though it were "shall".
We have to assume people can read English. Saying that an unsourced edit MAY be removed is clearly not the same as saying it MUST be or SHOULD be.
I also couldn't come up with a more ambiguous expression if I tried.
Two different meanings: 1) An unsourced edit could end up being removed - be warned 2) You have the permission to remove unsourced edits
How can we better word this?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/1/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Part of the problem is with the permissive word "may", which is too often read as though it were "shall".
We have to assume people can read English. Saying that an unsourced edit MAY be removed is clearly not the same as saying it MUST be or SHOULD be.
I also couldn't come up with a more ambiguous expression if I tried.
Two different meanings:
- An unsourced edit could end up being removed - be warned
- You have the permission to remove unsourced edits
How can we better word this?
At present it says:
"Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor."
A better wording would be:
"New material added to an article that lacks a reputable source is likely to be removed without warning. It is courteous for the editor who removes this material to re-insert it on the talk page of the article, along with a note about why it was removed."
On 3/2/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
A better wording would be:
"New material added to an article that lacks a reputable source is likely to be removed without warning. It is courteous for the editor who removes this material to re-insert it on the talk page of the article, along with a note about why it was removed."
Why do we keep coming back to this strange policy? It doesn't make much sense (95% of Wikipedia is "likely to be removed without warning"?), and it certainly doesn't reflect current practice.
This situation is starting to remind me of police who tell the public "if you do X or Y, you WILL be caught", when the actual apprehension rate is vanishingly small.
Is it not silly to have the most fundamental policy we have be so far removed from a) current practice, and b) what we actually want? We want sources, but we also want material to be added - we don't actually remove material except as a last resort. Maybe we need something like:
"When considering removing unsourced material, take into account the likely factual accuracy of the material, the possible harm that could be done by leaving it, and the chance that a subsequent editor could find a source for it. Libellous material or copyright violations aside, it is polite to move the material to the talk page with an explanation for your removal."
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/2/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
A better wording would be:
"New material added to an article that lacks a reputable source is likely to be removed without warning. It is courteous for the editor who removes this material to re-insert it on the talk page of the article, along with a note about why it was removed."
Why do we keep coming back to this strange policy? It doesn't make much sense (95% of Wikipedia is "likely to be removed without warning"?), and it certainly doesn't reflect current practice.
With any luck it's keeping the original research out.
This situation is starting to remind me of police who tell the public "if you do X or Y, you WILL be caught", when the actual apprehension rate is vanishingly small.
Don't forget that we're working towards 1.0 and a million featured articles...
Is it not silly to have the most fundamental policy we have be so far removed from a) current practice, and b) what we actually want? We want sources, but we also want material to be added - we don't actually remove material except as a last resort. Maybe we need something like:
"When considering removing unsourced material, take into account the likely factual accuracy of the material, the possible harm that could be done by leaving it, and the chance that a subsequent editor could find a source for it. Libellous material or copyright violations aside, it is polite to move the material to the talk page with an explanation for your removal."
Good, much better than my version. But we also need to encourage people to cite their sources (where possible) and remind them that anything which doesn't seem quite right *is likely to be removed*.
On 3/2/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
With any luck it's keeping the original research out.
Is undetected original research a big problem in practice? Is this policy going to have any effect on undetected original research?
My point is: *Detected* original research is easy to deal with, and doesn't need such a heavy handed policy. And in any case, WP:OR is the place to deal with that problem.
Don't forget that we're working towards 1.0 and a million featured articles...
With all the time in the world ;)
Good, much better than my version. But we also need to encourage people to cite their sources (where possible) and remind them that anything which doesn't seem quite right *is likely to be removed*.
I'm glad you've made the distinction between an unsourced edit and "anything which doesn't seem quite right". They're not the same. People should never hesitate to remove material which is factually incorrect and unsourced. But correct and unsourced is another matter.
Steve
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:45:25 +0100, you wrote:
Is undetected original research a big problem in practice?
It is in biographies, for sure.
Is this policy going to have any effect on undetected original research?
Yes. It gives unambiguous grounds for removing things which cannot be verified from reliable secondary sources (Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance) and makes it less easy for people to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. It ends sterile edit wars over the insertion of personal opinion.
I don't see why it's a problem, myself. It's not as if it's a new thing. Sure most things don't actually cite a source, but most of them *could* cite a source if necessary. It's the ones that can't which are a problem. Guy (JzG)
On 3/2/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
My point is: *Detected* original research is easy to deal with, and doesn't need such a heavy handed policy. And in any case, WP:OR is the place to deal with that problem.
People should never hesitate to remove material which is factually incorrect and unsourced. But correct and unsourced is another matter.
This entirely misses the point of the policy. We don't publish material that is "factually correct." We publish material that other reputable publications have published. If we leave it to individual editors to decide what is "factually correct," then we're into original-research territory, subjective views, people's prejudices, people's ignorance. Where our judgment comes in is in deciding which sources are the most trustworthy in the given area i.e. the most likely to be "factually correct." But we're always one step removed from that idea ourselves. The criterion for entry into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
Regarding the relationship between NOR and V, they are inextricably linked, in that the only way to show you're not doing OR is to cite a source.
Sarah
On 3/2/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
This entirely misses the point of the policy. We don't publish material that is "factually correct." We publish material that other reputable publications have published. If we leave it to individual editors to decide what is "factually correct," then we're into original-research territory, subjective views, people's prejudices, people's ignorance. Where our judgment comes in is in deciding which sources are the most trustworthy in the given area i.e. the most likely to be "factually correct." But we're always one step removed from that idea ourselves. The criterion for entry into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
I understand that this is the goal, but I think you're straying into idealistic territory here if we make that the *policy*.
On a practical level, how would you approach a long, stable article without a single cited source? Would you say, "this is probably totally subjective"? Would you be so easily fooled by the presence of sources, if you didn't check that they were reliable, were not cited out of context, were not selectively chosen, etc?
Regarding the relationship between NOR and V, they are inextricably linked, in that the only way to show you're not doing OR is to cite a source.
Hmm, the only way to *show* I'm not doing OR. But why would I need to show that? Because someone asked me to. Why would they ask me? Because they were contesting the validity of my contribution...
I think I'm going around in circles here...I need to have a proper look at the policy and clarify my thoughts.
Steve
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/2/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
A better wording would be:
"New material added to an article that lacks a reputable source is likely to be removed without warning. It is courteous for the editor who removes this material to re-insert it on the talk page of the article, along with a note about why it was removed."
Why do we keep coming back to this strange policy? It doesn't make much sense (95% of Wikipedia is "likely to be removed without warning"?), and it certainly doesn't reflect current practice.
With any luck it's keeping the original research out.
So now keeping original research out depends on luck? Being willing to sacrifice the 95% to ensure eradication of the 5% that's bad does not seem like a cost-effective strategy.
This situation is starting to remind me of police who tell the public "if you do X or Y, you WILL be caught", when the actual apprehension rate is vanishingly small.
Don't forget that we're working towards 1.0 and a million featured articles...
We've been talking about 1.0 for the last two years (or more?). When people are seriously ready to do something about that, I hope that they will apply common sense to their selection criteria.
At one featured article per day that will be enough for about 2740 years. We have plenty of time to get ready for that.
Is it not silly to have the most fundamental policy we have be so far removed from a) current practice, and b) what we actually want? We want sources, but we also want material to be added - we don't actually remove material except as a last resort. Maybe we need something like:
"When considering removing unsourced material, take into account the likely factual accuracy of the material, the possible harm that could be done by leaving it, and the chance that a subsequent editor could find a source for it. Libellous material or copyright violations aside, it is polite to move the material to the talk page with an explanation for your removal."
Good, much better than my version. But we also need to encourage people to cite their sources (where possible) and remind them that anything which doesn't seem quite right *is likely to be removed*.
Steve's version is definitely an improvement. "It is polite" is still a little wimpy; "editors are strongly advised" might be better. I would also make a small addition to have the one phrase read "the possible harm that could be done by leaving or removing it." Another thing that could be taken into account is the nature of the material to reflect that the standards applied to commentary on video games will be much lower than those applied to biographies of real people.
What needs to be stressed is a balanced approach to editing. For some editors enthusiasm far outstroips judgement., and techniques that would moderate their behaviour would be welcome.
Ec
On 3/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve's version is definitely an improvement. "It is polite" is still a little wimpy; "editors are strongly advised" might be better. I would
Agree, though I have a preference for imperatives: "Please move it to..."
also make a small addition to have the one phrase read "the possible harm that could be done by leaving or removing it." Another thing that
Hmm...I was trying to make a point about factual inaccuracies being harmful to people doing research, and indirectly to WP's reputation. If you want to add 'removing', perhaps it should be done in a way to emphasise that the two sorts of harm are completely different.
could be taken into account is the nature of the material to reflect that the standards applied to commentary on video games will be much lower than those applied to biographies of real people.
Yes - though some people will disagree with you. If it's not there already, the special case of living people needs to be highlighted. WP:LIVING definitely trumps WP:V on any tolerance of unsourced material.
What needs to be stressed is a balanced approach to editing. For some editors enthusiasm far outstroips judgement., and techniques that would moderate their behaviour would be welcome.
The recent survey of 100 articles leads me to think there is a greater problem with reticence to add more information, than the small number of editors who add too much information to articles on frivolous subjects. Well...that's a pretty big claim to make. But if 90% of our content is stagnant, 5% is overflowing with low quality additions and 5% is just right, then let's work more on de-stagnating the 90%?
Steve
The Cunctator wrote:
On 2/28/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote
WP:V is supported by WP:NOR, a longstanding, established policy. The only way to show you're not doing OR is to produce a reliable source. If you can't produce one, your edit may be removed, because OR is never allowed.
Yes, but this doesn't override some other things, like trying to get consensus.
The editors on a page are not allowed to reach a consensus to include original research, just as they're not allowed to decide to ditch NPOV. NOR and NPOV do override consensus.
You're a bit of a hardliner. Any form of analysis or recombination of ideas, any reformulation of content is original research to some degree. If there were no original research allowed at all, then the work on Wikipedia would not be copyrightable, because copyright requires some kind of creativity.
Let's not mix up "original content" with "original research". Listing statements A, B, and C in the order B, A, C because I think it's more readable or a better explanation that way is original composition, but there are still only three statements, so there is no research involved, original or otherwise. Verifiability and NOR can't even come into play until I go to add a new statement D.
I think where people get (sometimes justifiably) paranoid is that the writing does have to be careful not to introduce new statements inadvertantly. For instance, "B, A, and therefore C" is not just a rhetorical improvement on "B, A, and C". It's an interesting exercise, for instance, to update the carefully-chosen words of an old 1911EB entry without changing the original author's meaning.
Stan
On 2/28/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I think where people get (sometimes justifiably) paranoid is that the writing does have to be careful not to introduce new statements inadvertantly. For instance, "B, A, and therefore C" is not just a rhetorical improvement on "B, A, and C". It's an interesting exercise, for instance, to update the carefully-chosen words of an old 1911EB entry without changing the original author's meaning.
I agree with you, Stan, except for your use of the word "paranoia," because edits like "A, B, and therefore C," where the sources in fact only say "A, B, C" are commonplace, and that's precisely what NOR and V are there to guard against. Any editor can request a source for the "therefore," and if it's not forthcoming, "therefore" is removed. It isn't removed only where it's "controversial," as The Cunctator was trying to add to V, and which is anyway a subjective judgment. It can be removed, whether controversial or not, if no reliable source can be found to support it.
What The Cunctator may be worried about is that people will use this as an excuse to remove statements like "The sun rose on Monday. The sun rose today. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow," where being asked to track down a source would be WP:POINT. This is where commonsense kicks in. Anyone removing obvious and undisputed facts is engaged in a form of vandalism and we all know it when we see it. But just because we can't produce a complete list of undisputed facts that don't need a source doesn't mean we have to worry about making our policies are tight as possible. Every policy contains the invisible sentence "Use your commonsense."
In any event, I've yet to see an example of an undisputed fact for which no reliable source could be found, or an example of an editor going around removing undisputed facts because they lack sources.
Sarah
On 2/28/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I think where people get (sometimes justifiably) paranoid is that the writing does have to be careful not to introduce new statements inadvertantly. For instance, "B, A, and therefore C" is not just a rhetorical improvement on "B, A, and C". It's an interesting exercise, for instance, to update the carefully-chosen words of an old 1911EB entry without changing the original author's meaning.
I agree with you, Stan, except for your use of the word "paranoia," because edits like "A, B, and therefore C," where the sources in fact only say "A, B, C" are commonplace, and that's precisely what NOR and V are there to guard against. Any editor can request a source for the "therefore," and if it's not forthcoming, "therefore" is removed. It isn't removed only where it's "controversial," as The Cunctator was trying to add to V, and which is anyway a subjective judgment. It can be removed, whether controversial or not, if no reliable source can be found to support it.
What The Cunctator may be worried about is that people will use this as an excuse to remove statements like "The sun rose on Monday. The sun rose today. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow," where being asked to track down a source would be WP:POINT. This is where commonsense kicks in. Anyone removing obvious and undisputed facts is engaged in a form of vandalism and we all know it when we see it. But just because we can't produce a complete list of undisputed facts that don't need a source doesn't mean we have to worry about making our policies are tight as possible. Every policy contains the invisible sentence "Use your commonsense."
In any event, I've yet to see an example of an undisputed fact for which no reliable source could be found, or an example of an editor going around removing undisputed facts because they lack sources.
Exactly. The "slippery slope" argument fails in this case because what people fear *might* happen if these policies are actually enforced, in practice never actually *does* happen.
Jay.
What about online sources that go off-line? I've had it happen several times, turning a completely verifiable article into something that can't be verified through said sources anymore. How are we supposed to fight that?
Mgm
On 3/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
What about online sources that go off-line? I've had it happen several times, turning a completely verifiable article into something that can't be verified through said sources anymore. How are we supposed to fight that?
There's always archive.org (maybe).
Steve
On 3/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
What about online sources that go off-line? I've had it happen several times, turning a completely verifiable article into something that can't be verified through said sources anymore. How are we supposed to fight that?
You encourage people to add full citations in a References section. So if it's a newspaper article, for example, we have the byline, headline, name of newspaper, and date of publication, which means anyone wanting to check it can do so, even if it's taken off the newspaper's website. See [[WP:CITE]].
Sarah
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
What about online sources that go off-line? I've had it happen several times, turning a completely verifiable article into something that can't be verified through said sources anymore. How are we supposed to fight that?
My library of printed books is snickering and saying "hah, guess we're not so obsolete after all".
Stan
On 3/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
What about online sources that go off-line? I've had it happen several times, turning a completely verifiable article into something that can't be verified through said sources anymore. How are we supposed to fight that?
You reference it with the name and URL of the page, and the date accessed.
Jay.
jayjg wrote:
On 3/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
What about online sources that go off-line? I've had it happen several times, turning a completely verifiable article into something that can't be verified through said sources anymore. How are we supposed to fight that?
You reference it with the name and URL of the page, and the date accessed.
And hope there's an archive.org copy available in six months time.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm (macgyvermagic@gmail.com) [060301 19:29]:
What about online sources that go off-line? I've had it happen several times, turning a completely verifiable article into something that can't be verified through said sources anymore. How are we supposed to fight that?
Or editors who remove references they don't like from articles then nominate them for deletion as unverifiable. When bailed up on it, they say "but the sources are crap." What can practically be done about this?
- d.
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 05:04:11 +1100, you wrote:
Or editors who remove references they don't like from articles then nominate them for deletion as unverifiable. When bailed up on it, they say "but the sources are crap." What can practically be done about this?
Cite better sources? ;-) Guy (JzG)
On 3/3/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Or editors who remove references they don't like from articles then nominate them for deletion as unverifiable. When bailed up on it, they say "but the sources are crap." What can practically be done about this?
Beat them with a very large clue-stick?
References SHOULD NEVER BE REMOVED unless alternative references for the referenced facts are found or the information those references support is removed from the article. To do otherwise is completely against the spirit of our verifiability and sourcing policies and practise.
This is the case regardless of whether the references are unimpeachably solid or 'According to my friend Jamie who knows about this stuff'.
If you don't like a reference, you can do a variety of things:
* Ignore the problem * Post a query to the article talk page, user's talk page etc. * Find a better reference yourself * Remove the information, preferably placing it on the talk page unless it's defamatory in nature
One thing you cannot do is remove the reference without replacing it and leaving the content in the article.
I suspect I know which editor you're talking about here. They know better.
While I can't comment for my fellow arbitrators, I know that editors have been censured by the AC for much less serious abuse of references and verifiability, and if this kind of behaviour came before me in an AC case I would propose/support censure. (in other words: If you're doing this, knock it off).
-Matt
On 3/3/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
References SHOULD NEVER BE REMOVED unless alternative references for the referenced facts are found or the information those references support is removed from the article. To do otherwise is completely against the spirit of our verifiability and sourcing policies and practise.
...or the references are genuinely bogus. Not as in, "exists but is no good", but is in, "made it up to support my cause". (yes I've seen this)
Steve
On 3/3/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/3/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Or editors who remove references they don't like from articles then nominate them for deletion as unverifiable. When bailed up on it, they
say
"but the sources are crap." What can practically be done about this?
Beat them with a very large clue-stick?
References SHOULD NEVER BE REMOVED unless alternative references for the referenced facts are found or the information those references support is removed from the article. To do otherwise is completely against the spirit of our verifiability and sourcing policies and practise.
On the other hand, if the information and reference are garbage, there's no issue with removing both of them, at least to the Talk: page.
Jay.
1) More work at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Proposed_revision :
What, you ask, is verifiable information? [[Wikipedia:Use common sense|Use common sense]], but if you're unsure or are involved in a dispute, read [[Wikipedia:No original research]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]], and [[Wikipedia:Try to verify]].
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Try_to_verify is evolving based on edits and comments on the listserv.
3) A problem I've noticed is that [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] is morphing from a style guide to a policy guide. The "When to cite sources" and "Why sources should be cited" are not style guide sections, but rehashes of [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and such -- I've copied over the "When to cite sources" section to [[Wikipedia:Try to verify]] which tackles just that issue (in a hortatory manner).
Slim Virgin wrote
The editors on a page are not allowed to reach a consensus to include original research, just as they're not allowed to decide to ditch NPOV. NOR and NPOV do override consensus.
But drive-by edits are not policy, and are never going to be policy, in contentious matters. It is completely sound policy that edits which cannot, in the medium term, be supported by good sources cannot stand on the page. My concern, and I see it too often, is that material is cut because it is unsourced, and only because of that.
Best efforts may be needed to find sources for queried statements. The page history may reveal something serious about why something appears to be without a leg to stand on. It is naive to think that good policies are not used to 'win' edit wars, in a way that is not at all a win for the encyclopedia.
The fact that proper efforts to get consensus versions of page cannot be so tightly defined - where's the acronym? - does not mean that the policy that we edit collectively is trumped. We need to take care on this. The 'instrumentalist' view, that policy is to be used to rule one's own edits in, and the edits of others out, is a menace, in fact.
Charles
On 3/1/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
But drive-by edits are not policy, and are never going to be policy, in contentious matters. It is completely sound policy that edits which cannot, in the medium term, be supported by good sources cannot stand on the page. My concern, and I see it too often, is that material is cut because it is unsourced, and only because of that.
I agree. I am somewhat staggered that with the number of times that terms like "verifiability" and "no original research" are bandied about, we can not as a community agree on two simple matters:
1. Should we remove material which would be perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia if only the (presumed existing) source was actually cited? 2. Should we remove material which presents verifiable facts simply because those facts have not been published by another source?
In the first case, I'm talking about removing common knowledge or non-contentious material which no one is actually disputing. In the second, I'm talking about removing information like content of computer games, movies, or websites, where sufficient information can be given to make it verifiable, but for which no secondary source exists.
These are pretty fundamental questions, but I've only seen a small amount of discusson on them (and lots of disagreement about other issues which arises from unstated differences of opinion on these issues).
I would love to hear some discusson on this.
The fact that proper efforts to get consensus versions of page cannot be so tightly defined - where's the acronym? - does not mean that the policy that we edit collectively is trumped. We need to take care on this. The 'instrumentalist' view, that policy is to be used to rule one's own edits in, and the edits of others out, is a menace, in fact.
Yes. The old versions of the verifiability policy were extremely enlightening. Especially the "Help people out, don't make other editors try and find a source for you" line of thinking. Whereas now it's more like, "cite a source, or else someone else will delete your work".
Steve
On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Whereas now it's more like, "cite a source, or else someone else will delete your work".
And we were asking for proof that policy was being largely shaped by those who work on contentious, war-zone articles?
-Matt
On 3/1/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Whereas now it's more like, "cite a source, or else someone else will delete your work".
And we were asking for proof that policy was being largely shaped by those who work on contentious, war-zone articles?
Which in many ways is understandable, as those who work on non-contentious articles with like-minded editors don't really need policy.
Steve
On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Whereas now it's more like, "cite a source, or else someone else will delete your work".
And we were asking for proof that policy was being largely shaped by those who work on contentious, war-zone articles?
Which in many ways is understandable, as those who work on non-contentious articles with like-minded editors don't really need policy.
Understandable but unfortunate. It would be healthier if the aggressive policy versions were back in the "guideline" category -- or put into the dispute resolution sections. The general policy for the site should be friendlier, I think.
"Steve Bennett" wrote
I am somewhat staggered that with the number of times that terms like "verifiability" and "no original research" are bandied about, we can not as a community agree on two simple matters:
- Should we remove material which would be perfectly acceptable in
Wikipedia if only the (presumed existing) source was actually cited? 2. Should we remove material which presents verifiable facts simply because those facts have not been published by another source?
In the first case, I'm talking about removing common knowledge or non-contentious material which no one is actually disputing.
Such cuts can even descend into vandalism.
In the second, I'm talking about removing information like content of computer games, movies, or websites, where sufficient information can be given to make it verifiable, but for which no secondary source exists.
There is an issue here about 'ephemera', certainly. Without splitting hairs too much, it is clear that websites are ephemeral (updates are out of our control), and even films are released in different cuts, making assertions a bit harder than might seem.
These are pretty fundamental questions, but I've only seen a small amount of discusson on them (and lots of disagreement about other issues which arises from unstated differences of opinion on these issues).
Bear in mind that there are the versions we want to present to those who have been editing for three days; and the versions that will make more sense to those who have been editing at least three months and seen some contentious matters come up. It is highly desirable that no one has to unlearn anything, in passing from the first to the second. So it is fine to say 'don't include your own slant in the article': that doesn't change. It is not 'upwardly compatible' to say 'you may cut unsourced claims', while it is OK to say 'please back up your edits with good sources'.
Charles
On 3/1/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
There is an issue here about 'ephemera', certainly. Without splitting hairs too much, it is clear that websites are ephemeral (updates are out of our control), and even films are released in different cuts, making assertions a bit harder than might seem.
Sure, and if that happens, you can reevaluate the information. It comes down to: Do you believe the information on the page to be true? Take the example of a fictional pokemon character, Poopy. Say that the statement is made, "Poopy's character made its debut in episode 13 of series 6 with the line 'I love cheese'". This may not have been published in a reliable publication. You may not know whether it's true or not. And you could probably, without too much effort, track down series 6 and discover whether the line is correct or not (if not whether that was indeed the character's debut).
But: Do you think for an instant that the thousands of pokemon fans that pass through Wikipedia would let that information sit there if it wasn't?
Bear in mind that there are the versions we want to present to those who have been editing for three days; and the versions that will make more sense to those who have been editing at least three months and seen some contentious matters come up. It is highly desirable that no one has to unlearn anything, in passing from the first to the second. So it is fine to say 'don't include your own slant in the article': that doesn't change. It is not 'upwardly compatible' to say 'you may cut unsourced claims', while it is OK to say 'please back up your edits with good sources'.
Can't we just keep it simple and direct? Anyway I'll have a look at this latest version that has been proposed and see how it addresses the problem.
Steve
On 3/1/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote My concern, and I see it too often, is that material is cut because it is unsourced, and only because of that.
The 'instrumentalist' view, that policy is to be used to rule one's own edits in, and the edits of others out, is a menace, in fact.
Realistically, when is this a problem, Charles? I confess to being bewildered when people complain about the need to find sources. If their edit is correct, why can't they source it?
Sarah
On 3/1/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Realistically, when is this a problem, Charles? I confess to being bewildered when people complain about the need to find sources. If their edit is correct, why can't they source it?
To me, that's like complaining that the dinner I served you didn't come with wine. If I went to all the effort of cooking the meal, would a little wine be so tricky to come up with?
No, it wouldn't. But you didn't pay for the meal either, so you can't be too picky. To continue the analogy, I would appreciate a firmer statement of the policy: all meals must be accompanied by wine (in which case, I probably won't be inviting you around so often), or just BYO.
(that all came out a lot more harshly and crabblier than intended. all I mean is: yes, sources (and sauces) are nice, but helpful additions are rare enough already without imposing further constraints)
Steve
Slim Virgin wrote
Realistically, when is this a problem, Charles? I confess to being bewildered when people complain about the need to find sources. If their edit is correct, why can't they source it?
This point comes round once in a while on this list.
It depends very much what field one is talking about, what the division is between knowledge thtat is fully documented, and the matters that remain as 'folklore'.
I don't think it is at all safe to generalise, and say that in all fields, everything significant is there in a published source. I wonder who exactly is in a position to say that.
For example, plenty of music theory must exist in this sort of 'limbo'. It's just not going to be true that jazz harmony is limited to what one can find in the books.
Charles
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote My concern, and I see it too often, is that material is cut because it is unsourced, and only because of that.
The 'instrumentalist' view, that policy is to be used to rule one's own edits in, and the edits of others out, is a menace, in fact.
Realistically, when is this a problem, Charles? I confess to being bewildered when people complain about the need to find sources. If their edit is correct, why can't they source it?
Are they actually refusing to source it. Or is the material simply being removed without so much as an attempt to engage in serious dialogue?
Ec
On 3/1/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote My concern, and I see it too often, is that material is cut because it
is
unsourced, and only because of that.
The 'instrumentalist' view, that policy is to be used to rule one's own
edits
in, and the edits of others out, is a menace, in fact.
Realistically, when is this a problem, Charles? I confess to being bewildered when people complain about the need to find sources. If their edit is correct, why can't they source it?
Are they actually refusing to source it. Or is the material simply being removed without so much as an attempt to engage in serious dialogue?
It's all theoretical, Ray. In reality, simple facts are not being removed from articles. However, POV and Original research are challenged and, when no reliable sources can be found, they are removed.
Jay.
On 2/28/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
Agreed. This is policy wording driven through on the basis of controversial, edit-warred articles.
I just wish we'd go back to the pre-February 2006 version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=...
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
Agreed. This is policy wording driven through on the basis of controversial, edit-warred articles.
I just wish we'd go back to the pre-February 2006 version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=...
Or even take a look at some old-school versions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=...
What a huge difference in tone. Talk about the creep of formalism and distrust.
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
Agreed. This is policy wording driven through on the basis of controversial, edit-warred articles.
I just wish we'd go back to the pre-February 2006 version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=...
Or even take a look at some old-school versions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=...
What a huge difference in tone. Talk about the creep of formalism and distrust.
Actually, I think MyRedDice's earliest version is about right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=...
The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete, accurate encyclopedia. We can't be sure of our accuracy if we include information which cannot be verified. Therefore, include nothing that you cannot verify. If you try to verify some information in an article, and cannot, raise the problem on the talk page (you may wish to temporarilly remove the information). Someone else may have additional resources and be able to verify it. You should make it easy for people to verify your information by citing your sources. They don't have to be online - books, newspapers, etc - all good. Verifiability is one problem with articles on obscure subjects. By concentrating onf verifiable subjects, we also concentrate on important subjects.